|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On April 01 2019 15:00 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2019 04:59 xDaunt wrote:On April 01 2019 04:57 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 01 2019 03:44 xDaunt wrote:
Someone is leaking this Biden stuff now to deter him from getting in the race. What has surfaced already is likely just a warning shot, and there is more out there. Creepy Uncle Joe missed his chance. He should have run in 2016. Considering how much of an absolute pig the man you elected and keep supporting is, I would go soft on the “creepy uncle joe” and other trumpesque school boy taunts of that flavour. Trump flaunts his shit. No one cares about what he does anymore because we have been over-saturated by the reporting on it. I doubt that the same rules apply to Biden as Trump. But since we are all gentlemen of high intellectual integrity and void of crass hypocrisy, we will hold them to the same standard here, won’t we?
That's fine. I really don't give a shit about the Creepy Uncle Joe stuff just like I don't really care about Trump's stuff. From my point of view, it's all a distraction from the real issues. Still, that doesn't change the fact that Biden is likely to be more hurt by his stuff than Trump has been by his.
|
You are the one who is posting "Creepy Uncle Joe". If you don't give a shit, then stop posting it. And wtf is "Creepy Uncle Joe" anyways? Is this kids school?
|
On April 01 2019 19:37 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2019 13:21 xDaunt wrote:
To the extent that the government should be spending money on anything related to climate change, mitigation of potential climate change effects should be at the top of the list. Nothing that the US could possibly do unilaterally will materially alter whatever course we're on. So if you truly believe that the sea levels are going to rise and swallow cities whole, best to start investing in capital improvements to mitigate that danger such as sea walls and pumps. US carbon footprint: 17.3 tons per capita China carbon footprint: 9.5 tons per capita Yes, China is rapidly expanding their coal-based economy, which is belching ridiculous amounts of CO2 into the air. However, they are still only at half of the CO2 per capita that the US is right now, and any time anybody talks to them about this, they just point to the US and say "look, they emit over double per person what we do, and have done so for far longer than us. How about they lead by example!" This is obviously not a helpful standpoint, but climate accords have found ways to compromise, allowing China limited further expansion that their economy relies on while at the same time they lower their reliance on coal. Along comes Trump, torpedoes the Paris accords, and says US coal should be subsidized. How do you think China reacts to that? Do you thin this rhetoric helps convince China to change their CO2 belching ways? Or is it just convenient that you now bring up China and say "why should we change, look at China"? Oh, and in general, China is slowly coming around on general pollution, because they have poisoned the air in their cities and all their rivers and are (slowly) starting to realize that that maybe unbridled industry is not what they need after all.
This is all irrelevant to the question of whether unilateral US reduction in carbon emissions will make a hill of beans worth of difference. The citation is per capita emissions is particularly worthless to that question.
But to your point, the Chinese really don't give a shit about following the American lead on anything. The leadership has a singular vision for Chinese development that it will follow regardless of any climate change consequences. What will change their attitudes, however, is demand from the Chinese population. The people don't want to live in a polluted cesspit, and the government is starting to respond to that desire with policies that include a complete switch over to electric vehicles and mass planting of forests (the extent of the terraforming going on over there is quite impressive).
Show nested quote +On April 01 2019 13:21 xDaunt wrote:
To the extent that the government should be spending money on anything related to climate change, mitigation of potential climate change effects should be at the top of the list. Nothing that the US could possibly do unilaterally will materially alter whatever course we're on. So if you truly believe that the sea levels are going to rise and swallow cities whole, best to start investing in capital improvements to mitigate that danger such as sea walls and pumps. What makes you think that isn't already being done, and isn't explicitly part of any plan for dealing with climate change going forward? It just isn't enough. It's like you have a hole in your ship, and you're pumping water out. If the ship continues to sink the solution isn't to install increasingly bigger pumps, it's to patch the hole. Even if you'll still need to pump the water out for the foreseeable future. Your first order of business is to simply stop the problem from getting worse.
Sure, there are some scientists who talk about it, but what matters is the political question -- what are the politicians saying? Their focus is not on this.
|
On April 01 2019 20:10 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2019 19:37 Acrofales wrote:On April 01 2019 13:21 xDaunt wrote:
To the extent that the government should be spending money on anything related to climate change, mitigation of potential climate change effects should be at the top of the list. Nothing that the US could possibly do unilaterally will materially alter whatever course we're on. So if you truly believe that the sea levels are going to rise and swallow cities whole, best to start investing in capital improvements to mitigate that danger such as sea walls and pumps. US carbon footprint: 17.3 tons per capita China carbon footprint: 9.5 tons per capita Yes, China is rapidly expanding their coal-based economy, which is belching ridiculous amounts of CO2 into the air. However, they are still only at half of the CO2 per capita that the US is right now, and any time anybody talks to them about this, they just point to the US and say "look, they emit over double per person what we do, and have done so for far longer than us. How about they lead by example!" This is obviously not a helpful standpoint, but climate accords have found ways to compromise, allowing China limited further expansion that their economy relies on while at the same time they lower their reliance on coal. Along comes Trump, torpedoes the Paris accords, and says US coal should be subsidized. How do you think China reacts to that? Do you thin this rhetoric helps convince China to change their CO2 belching ways? Or is it just convenient that you now bring up China and say "why should we change, look at China"? Oh, and in general, China is slowly coming around on general pollution, because they have poisoned the air in their cities and all their rivers and are (slowly) starting to realize that that maybe unbridled industry is not what they need after all. This is all irrelevant to the question of whether unilateral US reduction in carbon emissions will make a hill of beans worth of difference. The citation is per capita emissions is particularly worthless to that question. But to your point, the Chinese really don't give a shit about following the American lead on anything. The leadership has a singular vision for Chinese development that it will follow regardless of any climate change consequences. What will change their attitudes, however, is demand from the Chinese population. The people don't want to live in a polluted cesspit, and the government is starting to respond to that desire with policies that include a complete switch over to electric vehicles and mass planting of forests (the extent of the terraforming going on over there is quite impressive). Show nested quote +On April 01 2019 13:21 xDaunt wrote:
To the extent that the government should be spending money on anything related to climate change, mitigation of potential climate change effects should be at the top of the list. Nothing that the US could possibly do unilaterally will materially alter whatever course we're on. So if you truly believe that the sea levels are going to rise and swallow cities whole, best to start investing in capital improvements to mitigate that danger such as sea walls and pumps. What makes you think that isn't already being done, and isn't explicitly part of any plan for dealing with climate change going forward? It just isn't enough. It's like you have a hole in your ship, and you're pumping water out. If the ship continues to sink the solution isn't to install increasingly bigger pumps, it's to patch the hole. Even if you'll still need to pump the water out for the foreseeable future. Your first order of business is to simply stop the problem from getting worse. Sure, there are some scientists who talk about it, but what matters is the political question -- what are the politicians saying? Their focus is not on this.
My point what that as long as the US is doing zip diddly squat (or at least, is projecting the image that it is not doing anything, despite there actually being quite a lot of change at local levels), they cannot pressure anybody into doing something about climate change: you still have by far the largest carbon footprint per capita out of any major nation. Meanwhile China emits by far the largest amount of carbon at a per-nation level and ALSO needs to take measures. You BOTH need to stop using the other nation as an excuse to not change. And yes, that means you need to unilaterally cut back on your emissions and pray China does the same.
As for politicians doing stuff to combat the effects of climate change, this looks a lot like doing stuff: https://www.businessinsider.com/miami-floods-sea-level-rise-solutions-2018-4?IR=T
The title and first part is all about Miami, but the article also talks about New Orleans and NYC. Is it enough? Well, the article seems to think Miami is doomed regardless, and New Orleans realistically is too. NYC is in a similar situation to London (parts can be salvaged, but prepare for lots of flooding).
However, the long-term plan is something the Dutch have been warning their population about for a few years now, although it hasn't really hit home yet:
Many experts told me that it was important for coastal dwellers to rethink their relationship with water. At a certain point, it’s impossible to keep all the water out.
Some of the reclaimed land near my parents' town is already "returned to nature" and becoming a rather pretty swampland and haven for birds. Part of the reason (obviously there are also other interests) for this is simply the rising costs of pumping all the water out to keep it as farmland. I can't find an English source for this, but if you can face google translate, just plug this in: https://www.provincie-utrecht.nl/onderwerpen/alle-onderwerpen/groot-mijdrecht-noord-oost/natuurontwikkelingsgebied-binnen-nnn/ Note that this doesn't necessarily have anything to do with climate change: this area has been problematic since it got reclaimed in the 17th century. However, I would say that it is iconic to the change of mentality in how the Dutch view their battle against water. From: we will win no matter the cost in the 20th century, to we will pick and choose the battles worth fighting, due to a growing realization that some places will get flooded regardless of our efforts.
|
oh the chinese do not follow the US when they do not want to live in a cesspit due to adverse effects of environmental policy? what a quaint little concept.
and scientists sure talk a lot, human beings generally talk. having a VERY broad consensus on something though, something that is VERY hard to achieve on the "marketplace of ideas" in academia is more than _just talking_.
Is it a hoax then? that's what President numbskull keeps telling us.
and sure he is creepy uncle joe. though Trump is definitely a rapist then. just ask Ivana.
|
|
|
On April 01 2019 20:10 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2019 19:37 Acrofales wrote:On April 01 2019 13:21 xDaunt wrote:
To the extent that the government should be spending money on anything related to climate change, mitigation of potential climate change effects should be at the top of the list. Nothing that the US could possibly do unilaterally will materially alter whatever course we're on. So if you truly believe that the sea levels are going to rise and swallow cities whole, best to start investing in capital improvements to mitigate that danger such as sea walls and pumps. US carbon footprint: 17.3 tons per capita China carbon footprint: 9.5 tons per capita Yes, China is rapidly expanding their coal-based economy, which is belching ridiculous amounts of CO2 into the air. However, they are still only at half of the CO2 per capita that the US is right now, and any time anybody talks to them about this, they just point to the US and say "look, they emit over double per person what we do, and have done so for far longer than us. How about they lead by example!" This is obviously not a helpful standpoint, but climate accords have found ways to compromise, allowing China limited further expansion that their economy relies on while at the same time they lower their reliance on coal. Along comes Trump, torpedoes the Paris accords, and says US coal should be subsidized. How do you think China reacts to that? Do you thin this rhetoric helps convince China to change their CO2 belching ways? Or is it just convenient that you now bring up China and say "why should we change, look at China"? Oh, and in general, China is slowly coming around on general pollution, because they have poisoned the air in their cities and all their rivers and are (slowly) starting to realize that that maybe unbridled industry is not what they need after all. This is all irrelevant to the question of whether unilateral US reduction in carbon emissions will make a hill of beans worth of difference. The citation is per capita emissions is particularly worthless to that question. But to your point, the Chinese really don't give a shit about following the American lead on anything. The leadership has a singular vision for Chinese development that it will follow regardless of any climate change consequences. What will change their attitudes, however, is demand from the Chinese population. The people don't want to live in a polluted cesspit, and the government is starting to respond to that desire with policies that include a complete switch over to electric vehicles and mass planting of forests (the extent of the terraforming going on over there is quite impressive). Show nested quote +On April 01 2019 13:21 xDaunt wrote:
To the extent that the government should be spending money on anything related to climate change, mitigation of potential climate change effects should be at the top of the list. Nothing that the US could possibly do unilaterally will materially alter whatever course we're on. So if you truly believe that the sea levels are going to rise and swallow cities whole, best to start investing in capital improvements to mitigate that danger such as sea walls and pumps. What makes you think that isn't already being done, and isn't explicitly part of any plan for dealing with climate change going forward? It just isn't enough. It's like you have a hole in your ship, and you're pumping water out. If the ship continues to sink the solution isn't to install increasingly bigger pumps, it's to patch the hole. Even if you'll still need to pump the water out for the foreseeable future. Your first order of business is to simply stop the problem from getting worse. Sure, there are some scientists who talk about it, but what matters is the political question -- what are the politicians saying? Their focus is not on this.
Generally agreed.
I'd say though that considering that the USA has the third highest population of any country and roughly holds 1/20th of the world populace how the USA treats climate change definitely makes a difference.
Yes, #1 and 2 both have more than 4x as many people, but both are second world countries and as pointed above have a much smaller CO2 production per capita. In 2014 the USA produced significantly more CO2 than India, if that hasn't changed the USA produces the second most CO2 emissions of any country.
The politicians aren't giving a fuck because it doesn't win elections. Their money (both private funds as well as for their campaigns) comes from companies who if affected generally dislike the idea and with a large part of western societies' populaces moving to the right it's especially unattractive for the conservatives, who often are one of the major powers. But ofc it's also not a good point for the social dems since it's a core point of the greens and they've been showing for years that you can't win elections with that.
Which is the reason I really like the school protesters, pressure from society is the only thing that could do anything to break that deadlock.
|
On April 01 2019 20:10 xDaunt wrote:
Sure, there are some scientists who talk about it, but what matters is the political question -- what are the politicians saying? Their focus is not on this.
Quick google search, showing mainly Chinese sourced newspapers in English shows that China is moving away from coal, mainly in an effort to control air control in major cities. Their main aim being reducing particulate matter. Even to the point of ripping out household coal burners in the countryside leaving people to freeze in winter. That's probably going a bit too far in my opinion.
In comparison, the political question is, what is the current American trump administration saying? Bring back coal!
Kind of sucks when the reality is the opposite of what you think it is and Chinese politicians (who not being democratic has no real need to "say" anything) are saying more on climate than half of American politicians.
|
On April 01 2019 20:10 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2019 19:37 Acrofales wrote:On April 01 2019 13:21 xDaunt wrote:
To the extent that the government should be spending money on anything related to climate change, mitigation of potential climate change effects should be at the top of the list. Nothing that the US could possibly do unilaterally will materially alter whatever course we're on. So if you truly believe that the sea levels are going to rise and swallow cities whole, best to start investing in capital improvements to mitigate that danger such as sea walls and pumps. US carbon footprint: 17.3 tons per capita China carbon footprint: 9.5 tons per capita Yes, China is rapidly expanding their coal-based economy, which is belching ridiculous amounts of CO2 into the air. However, they are still only at half of the CO2 per capita that the US is right now, and any time anybody talks to them about this, they just point to the US and say "look, they emit over double per person what we do, and have done so for far longer than us. How about they lead by example!" This is obviously not a helpful standpoint, but climate accords have found ways to compromise, allowing China limited further expansion that their economy relies on while at the same time they lower their reliance on coal. Along comes Trump, torpedoes the Paris accords, and says US coal should be subsidized. How do you think China reacts to that? Do you thin this rhetoric helps convince China to change their CO2 belching ways? Or is it just convenient that you now bring up China and say "why should we change, look at China"? Oh, and in general, China is slowly coming around on general pollution, because they have poisoned the air in their cities and all their rivers and are (slowly) starting to realize that that maybe unbridled industry is not what they need after all. This is all irrelevant to the question of whether unilateral US reduction in carbon emissions will make a hill of beans worth of difference. The citation is per capita emissions is particularly worthless to that question.
We should probably try and make it so that the US doesn't do it unilaterally then. Perhaps we could have some international talks, in some big-ass french city or something, where we try and make it so that all countries reduce their carbon emissions. It won't be enough but it sounds like a decent start.
|
On April 01 2019 09:18 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2019 08:58 BerserkSword wrote:On April 01 2019 08:45 Sermokala wrote:On April 01 2019 08:29 Nebuchad wrote:
I mean even if somehow climate change happens to be wrong (it isn't), at least it made a bunch of people realize that capitalism is bullshit, and that's quite an important thing for the world. Whats bizarre is that he says climate change is real but doesn't at the same time agree with anything at all that comes after the acceptance that its a thing. He agrees that CO2 is bad and that it'll kill the earth and we're releasing too much of it at the moment. but doesn't think that any of the outcomes from this is relevant enough to do anything. He agrees with the scientists that climate change is real but somehow rejects everything that they say about the topic. Or he is too embarrassed to say that he doesn't believe in climate change but refuses to let that change his mind. if you re-read my posts, you'd know that I simply dont think massive government intervention, especially in the vein of something like the ridiculous green new deal, is warranted Thats a really hard stretch to make for us you need to understand. If you believe in climate change you know the current path is unsustainable so you need to be in for some sort of government intervention or a "technology will solve things" based solution. The free market on its own has no reason to do anything about climate change. I'm for the US to stand up as the global savior of the world and regulate ocean trade. mandating emission standards and other practices that threaten our strategic interests. If nothing else to justify the fact that we control the seas.
Current path could be unsustainable (and there is still no consensus on how long we have until catastrophe), but I still don't see any justification for the government to step in with massive programs involving incredible resources and radical changes. My contention, from the start of this discussion was with AOC/Green New Deal types.
I'm all for letting the solutions come to us through technological innovation.
I dont' know why my position is so hard for you to understand. I've already posted articles which cite scientists who share my general viewpoint.
I am completely against the US playing at world superhero especially with regards to climate change.
|
The typical argument that the US will be harmed by switching to greener, more renewable energy only works if we assume “progress” is liner and all countries are racing towards it. Of course, the “it” is ill defined. The framing of green energies as regressive and harmful is a way for established industries to protect themselves by placing their current place in the market as more “productive” than whatever green tech could bring. How does China or another country "get ahead" of the US? What does that mean and what does it look like?
The dumb part is when we are not critical of this framing and engage with them as if they are truth, rather than critically ask “Why would changing our infrastructure over to green tech hurt the US economically?”
|
On April 01 2019 22:00 BerserkSword wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2019 09:18 Sermokala wrote:On April 01 2019 08:58 BerserkSword wrote:On April 01 2019 08:45 Sermokala wrote:On April 01 2019 08:29 Nebuchad wrote:
I mean even if somehow climate change happens to be wrong (it isn't), at least it made a bunch of people realize that capitalism is bullshit, and that's quite an important thing for the world. Whats bizarre is that he says climate change is real but doesn't at the same time agree with anything at all that comes after the acceptance that its a thing. He agrees that CO2 is bad and that it'll kill the earth and we're releasing too much of it at the moment. but doesn't think that any of the outcomes from this is relevant enough to do anything. He agrees with the scientists that climate change is real but somehow rejects everything that they say about the topic. Or he is too embarrassed to say that he doesn't believe in climate change but refuses to let that change his mind. if you re-read my posts, you'd know that I simply dont think massive government intervention, especially in the vein of something like the ridiculous green new deal, is warranted Thats a really hard stretch to make for us you need to understand. If you believe in climate change you know the current path is unsustainable so you need to be in for some sort of government intervention or a "technology will solve things" based solution. The free market on its own has no reason to do anything about climate change. I'm for the US to stand up as the global savior of the world and regulate ocean trade. mandating emission standards and other practices that threaten our strategic interests. If nothing else to justify the fact that we control the seas. Current path could be unsustainable (and there is still no consensus on how long we have until catastrophe), but I still don't see any justification for the government to step in with massive programs involving incredible resources and radical changes. My contention, from the start of this discussion was with AOC/Green New Deal types. I'm all for letting the solutions come to us through technological innovation. I dont' know why my position is so hard for you to understand. I've already posted articles which cite scientists who share my general viewpoint. I am completely against the US playing at world superhero especially with regards to climate change. No one else understands you because no one else believes in the benevolent god hand of the free market.
The market has shown over and over and over that financial gains are more important then long term sustainability.
If it was up to the free market we would still be using child labor.
if it was up to the free market we would still be using any number of toxic, poisons or otherwise dangerous substances in everyday life.
Where has the free market said "this thing we are doing is wrong and harmful, lets do something else less profitable' without a government making them?
|
On April 01 2019 09:15 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2019 08:58 BerserkSword wrote:On April 01 2019 08:45 Sermokala wrote:On April 01 2019 08:29 Nebuchad wrote:
I mean even if somehow climate change happens to be wrong (it isn't), at least it made a bunch of people realize that capitalism is bullshit, and that's quite an important thing for the world. Whats bizarre is that he says climate change is real but doesn't at the same time agree with anything at all that comes after the acceptance that its a thing. He agrees that CO2 is bad and that it'll kill the earth and we're releasing too much of it at the moment. but doesn't think that any of the outcomes from this is relevant enough to do anything. He agrees with the scientists that climate change is real but somehow rejects everything that they say about the topic. Or he is too embarrassed to say that he doesn't believe in climate change but refuses to let that change his mind. if you re-read my posts, you'd know that I simply dont think massive government intervention, especially in the vein of something like the ridiculous green new deal, is warranted It absolutely is warranted. The government can enact change, organization, and focus on an issue that "The Free Market" never will. In fact, if it has a say in the matter The Free Market would have nothing to do with climate change, ever, period. People lobby to hell and back to keep us reliant on crude oil, instead of pursuing a more sensible transition to alternate sources of energy. If you ever stopped to wonder why gas prices are still decent despite a depleting supply, it's because the people setting the prices want it to still be fiscally appealing, in light of developing technologies that will ultimately replace it. The point is, the government is the only thing we have that can enact the kind of change we need here. Unregulated capitalism is not the jewel you think it is, and it damn sure won't solve the problem by itself. Entrenched monies are simply going to keep looking out for their own interests, in this case by stifling progress toward a more sustainable future. The purpose of the Green New Deal is to take our government, our only real way of addressing the issue, and get it thinking about solutions sooner rather than later.
There is nothing wrong with oil suppliers keeping the prices of gas low if they can get away with it. Until the developing technologies can compete with the cheap gas, then I dont see the problem. This is best for the people. Cheap energy is a good thing and increases standard of living
Not everyone is willing to decrease their quality of life for the sake of some ambiguous possible doomsday scenario - and many people cannot afford to.
|
On April 01 2019 22:09 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2019 22:00 BerserkSword wrote:On April 01 2019 09:18 Sermokala wrote:On April 01 2019 08:58 BerserkSword wrote:On April 01 2019 08:45 Sermokala wrote:On April 01 2019 08:29 Nebuchad wrote:
I mean even if somehow climate change happens to be wrong (it isn't), at least it made a bunch of people realize that capitalism is bullshit, and that's quite an important thing for the world. Whats bizarre is that he says climate change is real but doesn't at the same time agree with anything at all that comes after the acceptance that its a thing. He agrees that CO2 is bad and that it'll kill the earth and we're releasing too much of it at the moment. but doesn't think that any of the outcomes from this is relevant enough to do anything. He agrees with the scientists that climate change is real but somehow rejects everything that they say about the topic. Or he is too embarrassed to say that he doesn't believe in climate change but refuses to let that change his mind. if you re-read my posts, you'd know that I simply dont think massive government intervention, especially in the vein of something like the ridiculous green new deal, is warranted Thats a really hard stretch to make for us you need to understand. If you believe in climate change you know the current path is unsustainable so you need to be in for some sort of government intervention or a "technology will solve things" based solution. The free market on its own has no reason to do anything about climate change. I'm for the US to stand up as the global savior of the world and regulate ocean trade. mandating emission standards and other practices that threaten our strategic interests. If nothing else to justify the fact that we control the seas. Current path could be unsustainable (and there is still no consensus on how long we have until catastrophe), but I still don't see any justification for the government to step in with massive programs involving incredible resources and radical changes. My contention, from the start of this discussion was with AOC/Green New Deal types. I'm all for letting the solutions come to us through technological innovation. I dont' know why my position is so hard for you to understand. I've already posted articles which cite scientists who share my general viewpoint. I am completely against the US playing at world superhero especially with regards to climate change. No one else understands you because no one else believes in the benevolent god hand of the free market. The market has shown over and over and over that financial gains are more important then long term sustainability. If it was up to the free market we would still be using child labor. if it was up to the free market we would still be using any number of toxic, poisons or otherwise dangerous substances in everyday life. Where has the free market said "this thing we are doing is wrong and harmful, lets do something else less profitable' without a government making them?
The market is not a 100% free market. There is nothing wrong with regulating the market, which is what outlawing child labor and banning certain dangerous substances. It's just heavily towards the free market end of the spectrum.
Green New Deal =/= regulating the market.
Green New Deal is heavy redistribution and nationalization of resources
|
On April 01 2019 22:19 BerserkSword wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2019 22:09 Gorsameth wrote:On April 01 2019 22:00 BerserkSword wrote:On April 01 2019 09:18 Sermokala wrote:On April 01 2019 08:58 BerserkSword wrote:On April 01 2019 08:45 Sermokala wrote:On April 01 2019 08:29 Nebuchad wrote:
I mean even if somehow climate change happens to be wrong (it isn't), at least it made a bunch of people realize that capitalism is bullshit, and that's quite an important thing for the world. Whats bizarre is that he says climate change is real but doesn't at the same time agree with anything at all that comes after the acceptance that its a thing. He agrees that CO2 is bad and that it'll kill the earth and we're releasing too much of it at the moment. but doesn't think that any of the outcomes from this is relevant enough to do anything. He agrees with the scientists that climate change is real but somehow rejects everything that they say about the topic. Or he is too embarrassed to say that he doesn't believe in climate change but refuses to let that change his mind. if you re-read my posts, you'd know that I simply dont think massive government intervention, especially in the vein of something like the ridiculous green new deal, is warranted Thats a really hard stretch to make for us you need to understand. If you believe in climate change you know the current path is unsustainable so you need to be in for some sort of government intervention or a "technology will solve things" based solution. The free market on its own has no reason to do anything about climate change. I'm for the US to stand up as the global savior of the world and regulate ocean trade. mandating emission standards and other practices that threaten our strategic interests. If nothing else to justify the fact that we control the seas. Current path could be unsustainable (and there is still no consensus on how long we have until catastrophe), but I still don't see any justification for the government to step in with massive programs involving incredible resources and radical changes. My contention, from the start of this discussion was with AOC/Green New Deal types. I'm all for letting the solutions come to us through technological innovation. I dont' know why my position is so hard for you to understand. I've already posted articles which cite scientists who share my general viewpoint. I am completely against the US playing at world superhero especially with regards to climate change. No one else understands you because no one else believes in the benevolent god hand of the free market. The market has shown over and over and over that financial gains are more important then long term sustainability. If it was up to the free market we would still be using child labor. if it was up to the free market we would still be using any number of toxic, poisons or otherwise dangerous substances in everyday life. Where has the free market said "this thing we are doing is wrong and harmful, lets do something else less profitable' without a government making them? The market is not a 100% free market. There is nothing wrong with regulating the market, which is what outlawing child labor and banning certain dangerous substances. It's just heavily towards the free market end of the spectrum. Green New Deal =/= regulating the market. Green New Deal is heavy redistribution and nationalization of resources https://apps.npr.org/documents/document.html?id=5729033-Green-New-Deal-FINAL
Please show me this nationalisation boogyman because I just read through it and I can't find it.
|
Technology will not advance if nobody invests money in it. Government rules are a very big incentive for companies to put money in advancing technology.
US does not have to be a superhero in this case. We only need you guys to not be jerks actually. That would already be a big help IMO
|
On April 01 2019 22:15 BerserkSword wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2019 09:15 NewSunshine wrote:On April 01 2019 08:58 BerserkSword wrote:On April 01 2019 08:45 Sermokala wrote:On April 01 2019 08:29 Nebuchad wrote:
I mean even if somehow climate change happens to be wrong (it isn't), at least it made a bunch of people realize that capitalism is bullshit, and that's quite an important thing for the world. Whats bizarre is that he says climate change is real but doesn't at the same time agree with anything at all that comes after the acceptance that its a thing. He agrees that CO2 is bad and that it'll kill the earth and we're releasing too much of it at the moment. but doesn't think that any of the outcomes from this is relevant enough to do anything. He agrees with the scientists that climate change is real but somehow rejects everything that they say about the topic. Or he is too embarrassed to say that he doesn't believe in climate change but refuses to let that change his mind. if you re-read my posts, you'd know that I simply dont think massive government intervention, especially in the vein of something like the ridiculous green new deal, is warranted It absolutely is warranted. The government can enact change, organization, and focus on an issue that "The Free Market" never will. In fact, if it has a say in the matter The Free Market would have nothing to do with climate change, ever, period. People lobby to hell and back to keep us reliant on crude oil, instead of pursuing a more sensible transition to alternate sources of energy. If you ever stopped to wonder why gas prices are still decent despite a depleting supply, it's because the people setting the prices want it to still be fiscally appealing, in light of developing technologies that will ultimately replace it. The point is, the government is the only thing we have that can enact the kind of change we need here. Unregulated capitalism is not the jewel you think it is, and it damn sure won't solve the problem by itself. Entrenched monies are simply going to keep looking out for their own interests, in this case by stifling progress toward a more sustainable future. The purpose of the Green New Deal is to take our government, our only real way of addressing the issue, and get it thinking about solutions sooner rather than later. There is nothing wrong with oil suppliers keeping the prices of gas low if they can get away with it. Until the developing technologies can compete with the cheap gas, then I dont see the problem. This is best for the people. Cheap energy is a good thing and increases standard of living Not everyone is willing to decrease their quality of life for the sake of some ambiguous possible doomsday scenario - and many people cannot afford to.
This isn't an "ambiguous possible doomsday scenario" - climate change, deforestation, air and water pollution, degradation of biodiverstity, desertification, ocean acidification etc. are all interconnected parts of the same process that is happening right now and not some speculation about distant future. Humanity as a whole needs to address this right now, and switching to cleaner energy sources is just one step towards the goal. While we can't prevent changes from happening we can try to mitigate them as well as we can and set up the playing field for those who come after us so that they don't have to deal with the absolute worst possible scenario.
|
On April 01 2019 22:15 BerserkSword wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2019 09:15 NewSunshine wrote:On April 01 2019 08:58 BerserkSword wrote:On April 01 2019 08:45 Sermokala wrote:On April 01 2019 08:29 Nebuchad wrote:
I mean even if somehow climate change happens to be wrong (it isn't), at least it made a bunch of people realize that capitalism is bullshit, and that's quite an important thing for the world. Whats bizarre is that he says climate change is real but doesn't at the same time agree with anything at all that comes after the acceptance that its a thing. He agrees that CO2 is bad and that it'll kill the earth and we're releasing too much of it at the moment. but doesn't think that any of the outcomes from this is relevant enough to do anything. He agrees with the scientists that climate change is real but somehow rejects everything that they say about the topic. Or he is too embarrassed to say that he doesn't believe in climate change but refuses to let that change his mind. if you re-read my posts, you'd know that I simply dont think massive government intervention, especially in the vein of something like the ridiculous green new deal, is warranted It absolutely is warranted. The government can enact change, organization, and focus on an issue that "The Free Market" never will. In fact, if it has a say in the matter The Free Market would have nothing to do with climate change, ever, period. People lobby to hell and back to keep us reliant on crude oil, instead of pursuing a more sensible transition to alternate sources of energy. If you ever stopped to wonder why gas prices are still decent despite a depleting supply, it's because the people setting the prices want it to still be fiscally appealing, in light of developing technologies that will ultimately replace it. The point is, the government is the only thing we have that can enact the kind of change we need here. Unregulated capitalism is not the jewel you think it is, and it damn sure won't solve the problem by itself. Entrenched monies are simply going to keep looking out for their own interests, in this case by stifling progress toward a more sustainable future. The purpose of the Green New Deal is to take our government, our only real way of addressing the issue, and get it thinking about solutions sooner rather than later. There is nothing wrong with oil suppliers keeping the prices of gas low if they can get away with it. Until the developing technologies can compete with the cheap gas, then I dont see the problem. This is best for the people. Cheap energy is a good thing and increases standard of living Not everyone is willing to decrease their quality of life for the sake of some ambiguous possible doomsday scenario - and many people cannot afford to.
One point that you seem to ignore is that gas and coal are only as cheap because companies are not made to clean up after themselves (i.e. take action to remove the pollution they create). This is exactly what national regulation should look like imo and that would immediately shift which energy is cheap and which is not. The current system only works because no one gives a fuck about what happens later as long as the money is good.
|
On April 01 2019 22:26 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2019 22:19 BerserkSword wrote:On April 01 2019 22:09 Gorsameth wrote:On April 01 2019 22:00 BerserkSword wrote:On April 01 2019 09:18 Sermokala wrote:On April 01 2019 08:58 BerserkSword wrote:On April 01 2019 08:45 Sermokala wrote:On April 01 2019 08:29 Nebuchad wrote:
I mean even if somehow climate change happens to be wrong (it isn't), at least it made a bunch of people realize that capitalism is bullshit, and that's quite an important thing for the world. Whats bizarre is that he says climate change is real but doesn't at the same time agree with anything at all that comes after the acceptance that its a thing. He agrees that CO2 is bad and that it'll kill the earth and we're releasing too much of it at the moment. but doesn't think that any of the outcomes from this is relevant enough to do anything. He agrees with the scientists that climate change is real but somehow rejects everything that they say about the topic. Or he is too embarrassed to say that he doesn't believe in climate change but refuses to let that change his mind. if you re-read my posts, you'd know that I simply dont think massive government intervention, especially in the vein of something like the ridiculous green new deal, is warranted Thats a really hard stretch to make for us you need to understand. If you believe in climate change you know the current path is unsustainable so you need to be in for some sort of government intervention or a "technology will solve things" based solution. The free market on its own has no reason to do anything about climate change. I'm for the US to stand up as the global savior of the world and regulate ocean trade. mandating emission standards and other practices that threaten our strategic interests. If nothing else to justify the fact that we control the seas. Current path could be unsustainable (and there is still no consensus on how long we have until catastrophe), but I still don't see any justification for the government to step in with massive programs involving incredible resources and radical changes. My contention, from the start of this discussion was with AOC/Green New Deal types. I'm all for letting the solutions come to us through technological innovation. I dont' know why my position is so hard for you to understand. I've already posted articles which cite scientists who share my general viewpoint. I am completely against the US playing at world superhero especially with regards to climate change. No one else understands you because no one else believes in the benevolent god hand of the free market. The market has shown over and over and over that financial gains are more important then long term sustainability. If it was up to the free market we would still be using child labor. if it was up to the free market we would still be using any number of toxic, poisons or otherwise dangerous substances in everyday life. Where has the free market said "this thing we are doing is wrong and harmful, lets do something else less profitable' without a government making them? The market is not a 100% free market. There is nothing wrong with regulating the market, which is what outlawing child labor and banning certain dangerous substances. It's just heavily towards the free market end of the spectrum. Green New Deal =/= regulating the market. Green New Deal is heavy redistribution and nationalization of resources https://apps.npr.org/documents/document.html?id=5729033-Green-New-Deal-FINAL Please show me this nationalisation boogyman because I just read through it and I can't find it.
“Nationalization” may not quite be the right term, but the GND unquestionably requires unprecedented government marshaling and redistribution of national resources, destruction of private wealth, and severe restrictions of individual liberties. This is what BerserkSword is getting at.
|
On April 01 2019 09:15 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2019 08:58 BerserkSword wrote:On April 01 2019 08:45 Sermokala wrote:On April 01 2019 08:29 Nebuchad wrote:
I mean even if somehow climate change happens to be wrong (it isn't), at least it made a bunch of people realize that capitalism is bullshit, and that's quite an important thing for the world. Whats bizarre is that he says climate change is real but doesn't at the same time agree with anything at all that comes after the acceptance that its a thing. He agrees that CO2 is bad and that it'll kill the earth and we're releasing too much of it at the moment. but doesn't think that any of the outcomes from this is relevant enough to do anything. He agrees with the scientists that climate change is real but somehow rejects everything that they say about the topic. Or he is too embarrassed to say that he doesn't believe in climate change but refuses to let that change his mind. if you re-read my posts, you'd know that I simply dont think massive government intervention, especially in the vein of something like the ridiculous green new deal, is warranted It absolutely is warranted. The government can enact change, organization, and focus on an issue that "The Free Market" never will. In fact, if it has a say in the matter The Free Market would have nothing to do with climate change, ever, period. People lobby to hell and back to keep us reliant on crude oil, instead of pursuing a more sensible transition to alternate sources of energy. If you ever stopped to wonder why gas prices are still decent despite a depleting supply, it's because the people setting the prices want it to still be fiscally appealing, in light of developing technologies that will ultimately replace it. The point is, the government is the only thing we have that can enact the kind of change we need here. Unregulated capitalism is not the jewel you think it is, and it damn sure won't solve the problem by itself. Entrenched monies are simply going to keep looking out for their own interests, in this case by stifling progress toward a more sustainable future. The purpose of the Green New Deal is to take our government, our only real way of addressing the issue, and get it thinking about solutions sooner rather than later.
Lobbying isn't just an issue of the free market. It happens in any economic system. Most lobbyists will try to turn the market in their favour (through regulation, subsidies or otherwise) instead of more free.
You're right though that the market doesn't fix pollution without government intervention. The problem is that pollution is a cost which neither the buyer nor producer directly bears. It's what we call a negative externality. There are some market friendly ways to fix this though. Either by assigning property rights by implementing an emission trading system or a carbon tax.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
